A ticket for another train, without EFT proof, defeats bona fide passenger status.

On 2 November 2021, Vipul Kumar, the deceased, was allegedly travelling from Shahjahanpur to Moradabad on a reserved journey ticket.

As the original train was delayed, he allegedly boarded Train No. 05211 (JanNayak Express) from Shahjahanpur towards Najibabad after obtaining an Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) from the Travelling Ticket Examiner on payment of additional charges.

While the train was passing through Seohara Railway Station, the deceased sustained fatal injuries after allegedly falling from the moving train.

The reserved ticket recovered from him related to Train No. 04265, while the alleged EFT was not recovered or produced.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence was not an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 05211 so as to sustain a claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, despite the non-recovery of the alleged EFT and recovery of a ticket relating to a different train.

Whether the deceased’s fatal injuries resulted from an accidental fall constituting an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2), or from his own act/negligence falling within the exclusion under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court; Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning “untoward incidents” and statutory compensation for death or injury arising from such incidents; and the requirement that the claimant establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with valid authority.

The Court distinguished Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, holding that although mere non-recovery of a ticket does not, by itself, negate bona fide passenger status, the recovery of a ticket for a different train coupled with the absence of the alleged EFT justified rejecting that status.

It also considered Hemant Kumar @ Happy v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 4219, relied upon by the respondent.

Under the proviso to Section 124-A, compensation is excluded where the injury or death is attributable to the passenger’s own criminal act, intoxication, insanity, or self-inflicted injury; the Court treated an attempt to deboard a moving train as conduct attributable to the deceased’s own negligence.

The Court found that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased had valid authority to travel on Train No. 05211.

The only ticket recovered related to Train No. 04265, and the alleged EFT was neither recovered nor produced in evidence.

Accordingly, the principle in Rina Devi regarding non-recovery of a ticket was held inapplicable because this was not a case of mere non-recovery; the documentary evidence affirmatively related to another train.

On the manner of the occurrence, the Court noted that the train had no scheduled stoppage at Seohara and relied upon the testimony of Gateman Monti Kumar, who stated that the deceased had attempted to deboard the moving train.

This account was found consistent with the DRM report, which attributed the fatal accident to the deceased’s own negligence rather than to an accidental fall within the compensable category of an untoward incident.

It held that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger of Train No. 05211 and that the fatal occurrence resulted from his attempt to deboard a moving train, attributable to his own negligence and not constituting a compensable untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the judgment dated 15 September 2023 of the Railway Claims Tribunal was affirmed.